Wednesday, August 04, 2010

California's Prop 8 On Gay Marriage Ruled Unconstitutional

Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ( who is an open homosexual) basically made his ruling based on the foggy grounds that there is a moral stigma to civil unions, basically an ipse dixit (legalese for 'because I said so') decision rather than any actual harm or existing precedent:

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples." Walker wrote.

Is this judge trying to legislate thought crime from the bench?

This is particularly interesting in California, where the domestic partnership laws were deliberately formulated to eliminate any differentiation in rights and privileges between heterosexual marriages and civil unions.

And since Judge Walker's scope was only supposed to be the legality of Prop 8 according to the California State constitution, I get the feeling that this was an effort to simply kick this upstairs...and it will undoubtedly hit the US Supreme Court.

The supporters of gay marriage are essentially risking all the marbles as they seek to impose this by judicial fiat.I have a feeling they may have over reached.

From a political standpoint, this is yet another disaster for the Democrats, as there is very little actual voter support for same sex marriage, even in a Blue state like California. I'd say it's worth at least five points at the polls.

It will be seen as yet another instance of activist judges attempting to invent whatever rights it wants to in the Constitution and to force the public to accept it.

UPDATE: Wolf Howling considers this decision the new Roe V. Wade. He's also got a number of other reactions....

7 comments:

Linda
said...

Proposition 8 Unconstitutional? You mean to tell me that Leviticus, was just the original fundamental Republican (emphasis on mental) who had not made it out of the closet (kinda like Ted Haggard)? Lets face it was not in the Ten Commandments or even addressed by Jesus the son of God, so are we surprised with this ruling, its about time.

The sort of intolerance and sense of entitlement evidenced in your comment ( at least what I can understand of it)is one of the reasons why the political fallout of this is going to be huge.

Not to bust your bubble, but try and follow me here: when a judge who should have recused himself because of his obvious personal interest makes a ruling based not on law, actual harm suffered or precedent but on the basis of his 'perceived moral stigma' it's not so good for anyone.

Keep in mind that another judge could proceed on the same basis to make laws and find stuff in the Constitution you wouldn't like...it works both ways.

BTW, there are a number of sociologically based reasons not to have facilitate same sex marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Why do you think they have over reached? What do you think the odds are the Supreme Court will decide for or against Prop 48? I suspect there is a 99.9999999% chance the Supreme Court will rule against Prop 48 and gay marriage will become the law of the land. As such, I don't see where they this is much of a "risk" for them.

Thought experiment: if the courts decided in a way that Barack Obama did not like, what would he do? He'd simply ignore the courts and do what he wanted to do any way. Perhaps the opponents of gay marriage could borrow a page from his play book. If the courts say we have to recognize gay marriage, the states who don't want it or whose people have voted against it, simply refuse to honor what the court says. In other words, tell the Supreme Court to send their military to enforce their bull sh!t ruliings!!

On the subject of gay marriage, I'm thinking "Sodom and Gomorrah." Linda would be encouraged to consult Genesis 19-20. Essentially defying God is not going to be a good idea for any one. There are at least 10 righteous in America, I hope. Also, a majority appears to oppose gay marriage. Perhaps these factors will play a role in how God chooses to judge us. I pray he will have mercy.

Russia, China, and Iran are getting ready to attack Aemrica. At least Iran is. I doubt Iran would make such a move without Russian and Chinese approval. Mr. Amadinejad essentially telegraphed this by spreading the lie that the US plans to attack "two countries" int he ME within the next couple of months. This will be used as the excuse to attack America. In light of gay marriage and Sodom and Gamorrah this is something to think about.

Just what are the socilogical reasons not to have gay marriage? Keeping in mind that this is no longer a "religous" or even "Christian" people how can this be defined in easily understood words?

In spite of overwhelming the masses with messages supporting and praising gay marriage and demonizing its opponents by the media, why does a majority still appear to oppose gay marriage? My theory is this a remaining vestige of the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our country was founded. If we continue to deviate from these founding principles, support for things like gay marriage may grow. Also, we should expect to lose God's blessings. In summary, opposing God will not be a good idea for anyone.

The religous reasons for opposing gay marriage are reason enough. I'm thinking "Sodom and Gomorahh" in Genesis 19-20. America's current situation is not exactly the same as that situation. At least we hope it is!! In any event, opposing God is not to end well for any one.

This is not a particually religous people at this time in American history. While there remain some vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have largely strayed far from the Jueo-Christian principles on which this country was founded. As a result of this, we have lost mush of God's blessings.

Given this situation, what are the sociological reasons to oppose gay marriage? Also, how can it be explained in a manner that the message can be communicated in as few words as possible? In a situation where the populace is bombarded with messages, the message needs to stand out.

Have to say your picture is disengenuous. You mean to say there are no sadomasochistic heterosexual couples in the world that get married?

All that aside, to discrminate and remove from people their basic human right and whether we like it or not the right to marry is a basic human right, is to legislate that one group of people are less than another. Adults are entitled to enter into a loving relationship and protect all that they have built together and make life and death decisions for each other. I personally am tired of all the holy rollers who think that they have a direct line to what God wants. I doubt intolerance was written into the Bible as an ok thing. That is mankind's creation and look how well that has worked out for humanity...pogroms, and genocide anyone.

Hello IP,The picture was specifically selected to offer a balance and a contrast to the one that usually accompanies any dinosaur media article on gay marriage - one of either attractive lesbians or sometimes, clean cut boy-next-door type male couples.

As to your statement about legislating that that one group of people are less than another, you have,respectfully, not one ounce of evidence to support that vis a vis California law. As I wrote above, the domestic partnership laws in California were deliberately formulated to eliminate any differentiation in rights and privileges between heterosexual marriages and civil unions.

As a matter of fact, the California Supreme Court said as much when they first declared Prop 22, Prop 8's predecessor unconstitutional.

There is nothing stopping consenting adults from entering into a legal relationship and exercising any of the rights married couples have.

What we have here is a judge who should have recused himself making a decision on spurious grounds on the basis that the people of California are too stupid to define what marriage is, in spite of the evidence of thousands of years of human history and civilization.

Aside from the danger this poses to the rule of law and the Constitution, it opens the way for some interesting premises.

If 'marriage' is now to be defined as any two consenting parties, why not three ? Why not five?Why not humans and animals? Why not an adult and a child, as is done in many Muslim countries? why not quickie temporary marriage, also done in Muslim countries and sanctified under sharia? Aren't they all 'loving relationships' and worthy of legality?

Once you create this precedent and open the door, you can't selectively close it.

Intolerance for some things was written into the Bible, however, it is true that certain scriptures have been allegorized or taken out of context to justify certain things that the Bible does not condone of which pogroms and genocide are likely some of them.

Some groups of people are less than others based upon certain behaviors. If a society were to condone all behaviors, societal order would likely break down very quickly. I would like to know just what "sociological reasons" that FF is referring to when he suggests opposing gay marriage.

Obviously the people who voted for prop 8 are aware of something. Btw, I think its cute how the "left" tells us "you can't legislate morality." By using the Courts to usurp the California voters the "left" is trying to do just that.

What I think the "left" is really trying to tell us is any thing that fits our agenda is okay and we will use whatever means possible to get it enacted via it be by hook or crook. Any thing that does not fit our agenda we will use whatever means are at our disposal to destroy and to he!l with the people. In other words, the "left" is free to legislate morality but the majority are not free to legislate morality.

Its also cute how the "left" cites majority opinion when it agrees with them but they ignore majority opinion or demonize the majority when it disagrees with them. From this, I think we can conclude the the "left" does not give a whit about the majority of the people. The people are simply pawns on their political chess boards.